Bike rental systems are well known in the prior art. There are four general schemes varying in complexity and cost:
The simplest is an “ad hoc” bike sharing system in which bicycles are distributed over a geographic area such that they may be used by anybody. The bikes are not locked, physical security is very low, and shrinkage and vandalism may be high. As a result, such bikes are painted or constructed such that outright theft is discouraged. Bikes can be taken anywhere and left anywhere where other users may simply pick them up and ride away. This type of system is not particularly efficient from a traffic management and resource allocation point of view because bikes go where their ad hoc users take them and over time bikes tend to be distributed to places where relatively few other users need them. This necessitates periodic pickup and redistribution to more heavily trafficked locations.
The next simplest system is the “bike corral” bike sharing system. Bike corrals physically secure the bicycles in a storage area monitored by an attendant who checks the bikes in and out of the corral when users return and take them. This system obviously requires an attendant, but otherwise costs little more than an ad hoc bike sharing system. Having an attendant has the extra benefit of allowing the system operator to ensure that the proper rental fees are collected upon rental or return. The attendant has to be physically present, of course, so the bikes may not be available 24 hours a day or on holidays, etc.
The next most expensive type of system is the “automated key station” bike sharing system. This type of system features remotely controlled key stations, each capable of dispensing a key to a particular bike stored on a bike rack. The key releases the bike from the rack, thus allowing the user to take and use the bike. The lock used to affix the bike to the storage rack is permanently attached to the bike and can be used to attach the bike to another rack or fixed object during use. When finished riding the bike, the user locks the bike to the rack from whence he or she obtained it, and returns the key to the key station. The key stations are connected to a network and a controller that tracks when keys are dispensed, returned, and to whom they were dispensed. Users identify themselves to the system by means of a card swipe with keycode verification. Such systems are bought and operated by large institutions such as schools, manufacturers, theme parks, and so on that operate closed, or relatively closed, campuses. Because these systems are relatively inexpensive, they are invariably not used to generate revenue from per usage transactions. In fact, none of these systems possess the accouterments of a commercial system that would allow per usage operation by individual users. Such systems are operated in-house by the institution for the institution.
The most expensive type of system is the “kiosk based” bike sharing system. These feature custom built kiosks with attached automatic dispensing racks controlled by the kiosk. These are the most powerful and flexible, being attached to a network and controller that offers a fully featured user interface with web access that allows users to rent, pay for, and reserve bikes at anytime from anywhere. These types of systems are bought and installed by municipalities and other governmental entities that wish to operate a system that generates revenue from per usage bike rental transactions to underwrite the cost of installing and operating the system. These systems also provide added security in urban environments where shrinkage and vandalism are known issues. Users sign up and provide a means of payment by means of the web interface and pick up and return bikes to any kiosk in the system.
While institutions such as colleges and universities deploy bike share systems, invariably they are ad hoc or automated key station type systems. The principle reason is cost. Both of these systems are less expensive to deploy and operate than kiosk based systems. Since these institutions ordinarily do not view operating ancillary revenue generating concerns as one of their core competencies they greatly prefer to buy and deploy less expensive systems and amortize them through higher tuition and fees that are easily passed on to students and parents. Unfortunately, some colleges, particularly smaller private colleges, no longer have the luxury of passing such costs along. Unless the institution has a large endowment generating funds for capital investments, tuition creep has forced these smaller institutions to be more frugal. Outsourcing the operation of a bike sharing system is one way of doing this. As importantly, the ready availability of loans funds and the protracted softness in the economy have caused enrollments at many colleges and universities to swell. This presents yet another reason for outsourcing ancillary, non-core competency to third parties.
Moreover, swelling enrollments have taxed institution operated housing facilities and given rise to legions of independent student housing providers. These housing facilities compete with each other for tenants and thus have a vested interest in offering a full range of comfort and convenience features such as exercise facilities, pools, Jacuzzis, and so on. These operators have come to view an on-premises bike sharing system as an essential comfort and convenience feature and as marketing advantage.
As a result, independent bike share operators have emerged to provide bike share systems in cooperation with educational institutions and their neighboring independent student housing providers. These independent operators face a unique set of challenges and require a different kind of bike share system than the ones that are available. First, these operators must generate revenue from per usage transactions to underwrite their capital expenditure and operation. Second, university campuses and their neighboring independent student housing providers collectively comprise a relatively closed environment and bike rentals are generally “out and back” transactions versus “point-to-point” transactions. Students usually ride to class or some other location on campus and then return to their living quarters. This presents a significant cost-savings opportunity because expensive kiosk-based systems are not needed—indeed they are disadvantaged—in such environments. Third, to allow per usage operation by tech-savvy students who expect fully functional user experiences and the ability to sign up, pay, reserve, and interact with the system the way they buy music or rent movies online, a fully featured user interface with web access is a necessity. Fourth, while institutions and their neighboring independent student housing providers may have no interest in deploying and operating a system, they invariably want a system that provides visibility into the functioning of the system to understand how their students/tenants are using it. Fifth, in accordance with their need to generate revenue and ultimately a profit, an automated means of indirectly detecting that a bike has gone missing from the operator's fleet or has been damaged and is no longer deemed suitable for rental by users must be provided. With these diverse goals in mind, conventional automated key station systems do not offer sufficient functionality and kiosk-based systems suffer from the economic impediment that they are far too costly to be economically viable on smaller scales.
Further, the rental of generic locked assets has become a crucial part of commercial enterprise. For example, the rental of tools and equipment from home improvement centers has become a large component of the business conducted there. The rental of computers and tablet computers has become a large component of the business of libraries, educational institutions, airports, or travel hubs. The rental of automobiles, now generally requiring human interaction to facilitate, is becoming far more automated with increasingly large numbers of renters depending only on a check-out employee when the driver leaves the rental facility. Picking up the car and key is an automated process today.
Therefore, it is a first goal of the present invention to provide an automated key station locked asset rental system attached to a network and controller that offers a fully featured user interface with web access that allows users to rent, pay for, and reserve locked assets at anytime from anywhere.
It is a second goal of the present invention to provide an automated key station locked asset rental system interfaced to a third-party payment processing system so that users and operators can securely pay and receive payment for system usage while the operator reduces the potential liability from maintaining user payment information.
It is a third goal of the present invention to provide institutional partners with sufficient, limited access to the system that the partner can understand how their students and/or customers are using it.
It is a fourth goal of the present invention to provide an automated key station locked asset rental system capable of indirectly detecting that a locked asset has gone missing from the operator's fleet such that recovery operations may be commenced or that an asset has been damaged and is no longer deemed suitable for rental by users and must be repaired or replaced.